Sunday, November 9, 2014

On Wednesday, September 10th, Gordon Orians came to Ada’s to talk about the Science of Aesthetics. His talk reflected the subjects in his recently published Snakes, Sunrises, and Shakespeare: How Evolution Shapes our Loves and Fears with the advantage of his running, dynamic commentary (check out the pre-event post for more info about Gordon and his book). While science writing thrives on concise, clear, and pithy statements, much of the majesty of scientific discovery is best captured in conversation. Gordon’s talk exemplified this conjecture.

Gordon started by staging the way in which he has studied the effects of evolution on our aesthetic sense. First, he pointed out how it easy it is to forget how recent “all of this” (“this” being our modern society, especially post-industrial revolutions) is. Most people have seen Neil DeGrasse Tyson on the Cosmic Calendar trying to demonstrate just how short the age of humans is, especially in comparison to the cosmos. But even when juxtaposed against the age of our planet, humans are very young. Most archeologists believe lithic technologies emerged as recently as 50,000 years ago and the Neolithic Revolution (or agricultural revolution) was as recent as 12,000 years ago. Gordon made a point to emphasize that, 1) evolution works slowly over generations, and 2) it takes a long time for humans to adapt to physical and environmental changes. This could be part of the reason we are willing to climb behind the wheel of a large transport and drive 85 miles an hour alongside strangers engaged in the same activity. Driving is so new to humans that we almost “can’t feel dangerous behind the wheel.”

Speed Limit, 45, unless late for work or in a hurry.

Of the research Gordon has conducted during his 50+ year academic career, his primary focus has been on habitat selection, initially in birds, but more recently in humans. Gordon developed what is called the Savannah Hypothesis “to explain our responses to trees of different shapes.” Gordon told us how by working with evolutionary psychologists, and developing tests in which people can rate how aesthetically pleasing they find a tree of a particular shape, he (in tandem with scores of other scientists and grad students over many years) could begin to trace the lessons learned by our ancestors, embedded in our psyches.

A version of the Tree Aesthetic Test used by Gordon and his fellow researchers.

Gordon’s work showcases the experience of an innate emotional response, one that is an immediate reaction to a scene that we are not necessarily able to explain. That feeling of, “I don’t know, I just like it” which I know I’ve felt. Interestingly, the long-standing hardwired responses seem to express themselves differently from more recently learned responses. For example, Gordon pointed out that despite the tremendous threat posed by a wielded gun pointed directly at your face, humans are less likely to express a sustained fear of guns versus a sustained fear of snakes. And this trait is seen even in city-dwelling humans who have little to no interactions with snakes. The assertion Gordon makes is that, despite changes of what is threatening in our daily environments, fear of snakes has been experienced by humans for tens of thousands of years for obvious reasons–snakes will, can, and do kill people. Evolution has hard-wired that fact into our brains and after millions of years, brains know when snakes are around. I’ve experienced this personally when trail running during the summer in the Garden of the Gods Park located in Colorado Springs, CO. It was only when I was mid-stride that I realized I was jumping over a rattlesnake, sun-bathing on the path. Maybe it was just really good luck, but more likely, my eyes saw the threat and my brain reacted by adjusting my step before my consciousness caught up.

The example of the snake and the gun is visceral, and easy to grasp, but a hard-wired response to visual input can also be applied to positive emotional experiences as well. For example, why do humans like flowers? We bring them to our loved ones when they are not feeling well and on our first dates or anniversaries, and they work. Lots of people like flowers, yet we don’t eat them and we always end up throwing them away. However, while most flowers purchased and gifted now are bought from a store and already when cut once we get to them, flowers in nature provide valuable information. 1) They tend to indicate that fruit is soon to follow, and 2) Flowers also remind people of honey, a rich and nutritious food we’ve been eating for thousands of years. (In Snakes, Sunrises, and Shakespeare Gordon covers the human relationship to honey, which has a deep history. Check out this video to learn more about Honey Whistling).

Perhaps my favorite part of Gordon’s talk was when he walked us through an evaluation of landscape paintings with the Savannah Theory as the context through which the paintings should be viewed. First, concerning trees, people tend to show a preference for trees with a low-splitting trunk (but not too low), with leafy, canopy branches that are easy to climb. These features on a tree suggest that it can provide shade, is near a water source, and can easily be climbed thus providing refuge from dangerous things like lions. What did we see on the landscape paintings? Quite often there were trees with low-splitting trunks, leafy, canopy branches, that provided shelter and looked easy to climb.

A landscape designed by Humphry Repton. Note the accessible trees, canopies, and “framed” body of water

Other features predominate throughout landscape paintings were: an abundant water source as the central feature of the painting, a clear space of refuge where one could “see without being seen,” and the appearance of the scene being framed, whether that be by trees, bushes or some other physical feature (check out paintings by John Constable for good examples). We also looked at paintings that featured buildings, particularly churches, and a particular time of day, either morning or evening. In these types of paintings you’ll often find other interesting expressions. In paintings with buildings, women tend to be painted close to or entering the building, while men will be further away. Similarly, morning pictures will place people outside of and even far away from buildings whereas evening/sunset paintings almost always place people very close to their place of refuge. This makes sense evolutionarily. In human history, we’ve been far more likely to get eaten or attacked after dark than during daylight hours. Not only is our night vision questionable at best, most predators are out at night and their night vision is sensational.

Note Pages 2 & 3 of 6 from Gordon’s talk

The most powerful takeaway from Gordon’s presentation is the idea that “As civilization has developed, we’ve forgotten about our ancestors–we got culture, and we forgot about genetics.” But culture doesn’t even make sense without evolution. With this in mind, it’s interesting to consider how humans are adapting to modern technologies, especially those emerging over the last three centuries, (cars, airplanes, medicines, computers) and what it might look like if our genetics are able to catch up to our culture.

Gordon Orians during post-talk Q&A

This entry was posted
on Sunday, November 9th, 2014 at 9:00 am and is filed under Ada's Events, Authors of the Month.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.